While the court underlined that file sharing is a serious problem for rights holders
The court is incorrect on this point - I know a lot of rights holders who use P2P file sharing as part of their marketing. What the court meant was that the Recording Industry (RIAA, IFPI) doesn't like file sharing, as it gives artists an alternative to signing with a major label.

That's an interesting point you're raising, Mad Hatter. Sorry it took me so long to reply. Your comment slipped my notice. I agree that file-sharing can prove very worthwhile for rights holders to building a good relationship with their fans. The recording industry obviously has a hard time getting to grips with losing some amount of control. However, I think that is goes too far saying that only the established industry suffers. We all know artists and producers that thrive using P2P. At the same time, we also all know artists that have to move back in with their parents because their songs are illegally shared rather than bought. The lesson they are taught by people sharing their work without consent of the artists is very harsh indeed.

We have to understand that a lot of things which are touching on copyright and file sharing are very complex due to so many issues arising. For instance, how are we sure that it is bad, that some artists are moving back in with their parents? I mean, they were not forced to be musicians. They chose this path. Before the XX century music was a calling, not a gate to a fortune. In fact, if a young man would focus on being a serious composer, his family would consider that he is going to lead a poor life. If those musicians cannot perform and make their money only based on sales - well, tough luck. These days selling copies of music is like selling air in bottles. Trying to artificially create scarcity where there is none is unrealistic. If less musicians go into music, it might make music better, since only those with the calling would want to go through all the trouble. Nowadays there are so many "musicians" with a dream to live off their hobby that we all would have to be bound by contracts to buy their music in order to feed them all! I seriously think professional musicians who go for music to become rich and famous are not what society needs. Being an artist was never easy and for a good reason. Music is not business. Music is art. So let's treat it as one.

Another point I would like to make on the matter is a social conflict of interests. It is assumed that respecting the rights of copyright holders is beneficial to society. But I fail to see in what way and why should we care about a few right holders that complain to courts all over the world. They are 0,03% of population. Why should we care whether everybody's freedom of sharing information is someone's problem? Why should I care to be told in the news that some company decided for me that I now cannot share a movie with my friend. Neither me nor my friend know anyone from this company and we have no desire to have our friendship affected because of some guys we do not know who decided something about our lives without asking us. I do not care about Warner. I do not care about Universal.

However, if I am being told that these right holders benefit society by helping raising funds for artists, then when buying an album or a movie I would like to see the precise amount of money which goes to the artist and actually where does the rest of the money goes and for what reason. If those right holders position themselves as people who serve the society and who get paid by the public to do their noble service, will they please prove to us that their existence is indeed useful and will they please show us how are money is spent - and we, as the public for who they are working for - will decide whether we like it or not. But of course, we see no such thing. I do not remember Warner explaining why they are not taking advantage of the Internet and instead are spending massive amount of MY money, along with YOUR money, on less effective but more expensive TV commercials.

Dear Louigi, I think you are overly romanticising the calling of musicians. It is true that many people choose a life of art as a calling. However, this is not necessarily the case. Music, movies and other cultural expressions such as design, books and games CAN be art, but do not necessarily have to be art. They can just as well be products meant as entertainment. You may prefer high culture over pop culture, a (perceived) lack of artistic quality does not mean that these items have no place in this world or that they have no value and therefore may be shared at will. You define a difference between art and trade that I think does not exist. Neither do I believe that less supply of music/movies/games/design would automatically raise the standards. Very talented artists may, upon the prospects of not being able to make a living, still choose not to pursue such a career. Talent and calling are not perfectly correlated.

Furthermore, the fact that you don't care about the producers does, in my mind, not provide a justification to share their productions at your whim. If a company has invested millions in making a movie, it should hold a degree of ownership to recoup investments. If they cannot do this, they will at some point, not be able to find investors anymore.

That said, I sense that there is another argument in your line of reasoning: that of moral duty. As the providers of entertainment, people have a right to expect that firms like Warner and Universal do their best to find convenient and easy to use distribution models for their wares. This becomes their moral duty. At the same time, people who use their wares, have the moral duty to reimburse these firms for their work.As people grow increasingly weary of the entertainment industries not adopting the Internet as a convenient and reasonable distribution platform, they feel that the providers do not live up to their duty. This disenfranchises people from the providers, and makes that they no longer feel the urge to live up to their part of the bargain: reimbursing the producers. This is indeed a problem and will, I think, prove hard to fix.

I agree about people choosing music as a work in the entertainment industry being a good possibility. I just do not think this is necessary for the society to the point of putting citizens in jail because they took away theoretical profit from an entertainer. If the society wants to be entertained so badly, it puts people in jail for THEORETICAL possibility of lowering the profit, I say this society is sick. I am not saying I have the answers, I am saying there are a lot of things that need to be questioned. Like - are we sure the goal to increase the amount of books and movies produced is a good goal? Do we need so much books and music and movies? And if yes - doesn't the free community already provide so many material, that even the best of the best of it will take more than one life-time to experience?

Dear Louigi, you have a good point that judging the balance of individual rights and the good for society as a whole is a complex issue. The rights of individuals and individual entities need to be carefully balanced with the interests of societies as a whole. Therefore, it is vital that you keep up the good work and keep thinking about this!